Thanks for Sharing. Some interesting points raised. I guess ICANN's Board / CEO have the answers to the issues raised ( in the event that this draft letter is signed and sent). Regards Karel On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thanks Milton! > > Are we going to see the first public appearance before Congress of the new > CEO this Tuesday??? > > Please send the link!!!!! > > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > +506 8837 7176 > Skype: carlos.raulg > Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) > On 22 May 2016, at 15:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Draft letter from Rubio circulating in the Senate today. Leaked. Not >> sure by who and don't know who will sign. ICANN in emergency mode for >> hearing Tuesday arguing against delay. >> >> Paul Rosenzweig >> [log in to unmask]<mailto: >> [log in to unmask]> >> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 >> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 >> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 >> www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> >> My PGP Key< >> http://www.redbranchchttp/redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ >> > >> >> >> >> Dear Assistant Secretary Lawrence E. Strickling, >> >> We are writing to express our concerns as the National Telecommunications >> and Information Administration (NTIA) reviews the proposal from the >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to transfer its >> role regarding Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) functionality to a >> global multi-stakeholder community. >> >> We commend the work of the current multi-stakeholder community to develop >> a transition proposal that would maintain the security, stability, and >> resiliency of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS), In the absence of >> the historical role played by the United States in the IANA functions >> process, it is important that any new system enhance accountability and >> transparency measures to bolster the multi-stakeholder model and ensure >> that ICANN continues to meet the needs and expectations of customers and >> partners of the IANA services. >> >> The care and dedication of the community in developing this proposal is >> clear and there are many positive aspects to the proposal. However, the >> Internet is too important to allow the transition to occur without >> certainty that the proposed accountability measures are adequate and that >> ICANN's new governance structure works properly. Therefore, we respectfully >> request that you consider an extension of the NTIA contract with ICANN to >> ensure that the many changes in the transition proposal are implemented, >> operate as envisioned, and do not contain unforeseen problems, oversights, >> or complications that could undermine the multi-stakeholder model or >> threaten the openness, security, stability, or resiliency of the Internet. >> >> >> The transition proposal would create a radically different governance >> structure for ICANN. Specifically, it would establish an "Empowered >> Community" that would possess key powers, including dismissal of Board >> members and approval or disapproval of bylaw changes, designed to hold >> ICANN and the Board accountable. Although promising in theory, this >> structure and authority remains untested and it is unclear if the Empowered >> Community would actually be able to exercise these powers with reasonable >> facility. >> >> We are also concerned about the expanded role of governments in the >> transition proposal. Under the proposal, the Government Advisory Committee >> (GAC) would retain its privileged advisory role of being able to send >> advice directly to the ICANN Board. However, governments would also be >> granted new power and authority that they have never possessed in ICANN >> through the full voting participation of the GAC in the Empowered >> Community. The integrity of the bottom-up stakeholder process is one of the >> pillars of the transition and ICANN must prevent governments from >> exercising undue influence over the Internet. We are concerned that the >> increased influence of the GAC could be used by governments to pressure >> ICANN to act or impede multi-stakeholder efforts to block actions supported >> by governments. The IANA transition should not provide an opportunity for >> governments to increase their influence; their role should remain advisory. >> >> Finally, there are many details of the proposal that have yet to be >> developed, much less finalized. For instance, significant transparency >> measures have been deferred to "work Stream 2" and will not be developed or >> be in place before September 2016. Another outstanding issue is ICANN's >> undefined commitment to human rights. We firmly support human rights, but >> we are concerned that including this commitment into the ICANN bylaws could >> encourage the organization to adopt decisions or consider activities >> outside of ICANN's core competency. There is also the concern that, absent >> the pressure of the transition, the commitment of ICANN to these matters >> could be weakened. >> >> Currently, ICANN and Verisign are engaged in a 90 day parallel testing >> period of the new IANA process. This test is being conducted alongside the >> usual process to make sure that the new technical process that would be in >> place after the transition does not result in errors that could threaten >> the security, stability, or resiliency of the DNS. This verification is so >> important that, if any "unexplained differences" arise, both ICANN and >> Verisign have announced that they would restart the test period. >> >> The accountability and governance of ICANN is just as important as the >> technical and procedural changes of the transition proposal. Indeed, >> failings or weaknesses in the accountability mechanisms or governance >> structure would pose additional potential challenges to the openness of the >> Internet and the multi-stakeholder model. >> The new governance model that ICANN will transition to is unproven and >> should also undergo parallel testing. Indeed, the ICANN Board itself >> suggested last year when considering an early draft of the transition >> proposal it would be prudent to delay the transition until the new >> governance structure is in place and "ICANN has demonstrated its experience >> operating the model and ensuring that the model works in a stable manner." >> Although the current proposal is substantially different than that earlier >> draft, the radically different governance structure currently proposed for >> ICANN should elicit similar caution. >> >> In finalizing your review of this proposal, we request you consider an >> extension of the NTIA contract with ICANN with the goal of ensuring that >> the transition establishes a stable system that reinforces the >> multi-stakeholder model and does not contain unforeseen problems or >> consequences that could jeopardize the security, stability, and openness of >> the Internet. >> >> >> Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing >> from you >> >